Jill Stein in Slate.com

On Foreign Policy: Syria invited Russia into war; don't threaten no-fly zone

STEIN: If you watched the debate the other night, you would have heard Trump saying that he's looking for collaboration with Putin. But I consider the threat of nuclear war not trivial at all, and this is one of the most clear and present dangers to our surroundings.

Q: Why is it more likely under Clinton, though? This is about Trump's hair-trigger temper generally, not just with Putin.

STEIN: Put it this way: The most likely nuclear threat right now is with Russia. And when you have Hillary Clinton then beating the war drums against Russia, and essentially saying that if she's elected that we will declare war on Russia--because that's what a no-fly zone over Syria amounts to. Shooting down Russian warplanes.

Q: Not if the Russians adhere.

STEIN: But our no-fly zone does not adhere to international law. Syria--for better or for worse--invited Russia there.

On Homeland Security: Don't take sides in Yemen; arms embargo instead

STEIN: Well, we already are taking a side in Yemen.

Q: But should we be?

STEIN: Yeah, we certainly should not be taking a side in Yemen. We are party to the war crimes that are being committed by Saudi Arabia, who's using cluster bombs made by us. And we've supplied $100 billion worth of weapons to the Saudis, who have been massively committing human rights abuses. It's against our own laws. The Leahy bill requires that we not sell weapons to human rights abusers. So just in accord with our own policies, we should not have anything to do with Yemen.

Q: What happens if the Houthis take over Yemen? If the U.S. disengages in Yemen, how does ISIS respond?

STEIN: Well, the point is, ISIS needs to be deprived of its nutrition and its life-blood. That's why we need to start an arms embargo, that's why we need to cut off the funding that flows through our allies, in particular.

On Homeland Security: Warsaw Pact ended NATO's reason to exist, then NATO expanded

STEIN: That certainly needs to be revisited, yes it does.[We should] work with Europe to transfer NATO to being a European defense organization that doesn't involve us. We're not funding it, we're not using it to do an end-run around the need for Congress to approve our foreign policy. We shouldn't be making foreign policy through NATO.

Q: You don't think that NATO gives us leverage in Europe, particularly in regards to Russia?

STEIN: We promised Gorbachev that we would not be moving one step to the east. Remember, the Warsaw Pact was the counterweight to NATO. The Warsaw Pact went away, and what did NATO do? NATO expanded and went east. We said we wouldn't move one inch to the east; we have.

Q: Countries were under Soviet control, though.

STEIN: That was the reason for NATO, right? That reason went away, yet NATO only got bigger. So it's really important not to think like the only show in town here.

On War & Peace: End policy of regime-change and military intervention

STEIN: U.S. foreign policy based on regime-change and military intervention has been an utter disaster. It is exhausting our budget; it takes up 54 percent of our discretionary budget for a defense department, which is truly an offense department, and it takes almost half of your income taxes. And what do we have to show for it?

Q: How are you going to pull the troops back in a way that, for instance, won't allow Iraq to collapse? Obama promised to pull the troops back, tried to do it, got sucked in again.

STEIN: Well, right. Shouldn't have been in there in the first place. We are bombing seven countries right now. Yesterday we fired missiles at Yemen. I mean, there is no end to U.S. incursions. We have this terrific power of militarism, and we're doing it all over the place. So here's the solution: We need a weapons embargo in the Middle East, and we need to freeze the bank accounts of those countries who insist on funding terrorist extremism.